I remember that post, and to be honest I don't fully agree with it. No, there isn't a writer on the planet who's allowed to say 'this is all there is to my work', because subtext is subjective and everybody's going to see it differently. However, they do get to say 'this is what I see in my work and what I put in there', and that's worth something too.
I also disagree that all subtext is understandable to everyone. To bring up an old and tired example, I've listened at great length to Zuko/Katara shippers talk about the Fire/Water duality, and I still don't understand it. Oh, I can see the duality all right, but I cannot understand how that translates into romantic subtext. The two things are completely divorced to me. My brain's just coming from a different place from theirs, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Anyways, this is all sort of detached from the point I was making, which is that it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about subtext that isn't about what the authorial intent is. Every other topic relating to the subtext varies so completely from person to person that in a best case, such a discussion goes as follows:
Person A: When I see X scene, this is how I interpret it.
Person B: Really? Huh. When I see that scene, this is how I interpret it.
Person A: Huh. I can respect that.
A worse case goes pretty much exactly like that, except that it involves one or more of the individuals flying off the handle at the other.
And I mean, that's a fine conversation, and it can be a lot of fun to see other people's perspectives, but it doesn't constitute any sort of meaningful discussion. And pretty much any other conversation has to go that way, because what's being put forward is just subjective interpretation.
The only real and meaningful discussion that's possible is trying to suss out which interpretation is the author's. Which in some cases is really easy, and in some cases...not so much.
no subject
I also disagree that all subtext is understandable to everyone. To bring up an old and tired example, I've listened at great length to Zuko/Katara shippers talk about the Fire/Water duality, and I still don't understand it. Oh, I can see the duality all right, but I cannot understand how that translates into romantic subtext. The two things are completely divorced to me. My brain's just coming from a different place from theirs, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Anyways, this is all sort of detached from the point I was making, which is that it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about subtext that isn't about what the authorial intent is. Every other topic relating to the subtext varies so completely from person to person that in a best case, such a discussion goes as follows:
Person A: When I see X scene, this is how I interpret it.
Person B: Really? Huh. When I see that scene, this is how I interpret it.
Person A: Huh. I can respect that.
A worse case goes pretty much exactly like that, except that it involves one or more of the individuals flying off the handle at the other.
And I mean, that's a fine conversation, and it can be a lot of fun to see other people's perspectives, but it doesn't constitute any sort of meaningful discussion. And pretty much any other conversation has to go that way, because what's being put forward is just subjective interpretation.
The only real and meaningful discussion that's possible is trying to suss out which interpretation is the author's. Which in some cases is really easy, and in some cases...not so much.